Church in the New Testament

  • Thread starter Thread starter rivera01
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First, I’m not sure what you’re trying to show me with the first two posts since I already pointed out that the Greek for bishops and elders of the new priesthood is different than the Greek for the priests of the clan of Levi. If the Christians had used the same word for the new priesthood of those consecrated by Jesus as had long been used for Levitical priests, the Jews whom they were trying to convert would have objected because the Apostles and the people they ordained were not Levites. However, to claim that “presbyteros” always means “elder person” as in and old person, is not supported by the first translation of the Bible, St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which sometimes translates it as “seniorus” meaning old man or elder and other times leaves it "presbyterus", whenever St. Paul or the other biblical authors are using it as the title of an office, which by St. Jerome’s time was very firmly established as the title of parish priests and “episcopus” was established as the title of diocesan bishops. St. Jerome, though, would be the first to admit that during New Testament times that distinction had still not been cemented. Again, this is a historical fact that can very easily be verified by a simple Google-search for the etymology of these words, or a study of their use in the writings of the early Church Fathers.
QuickCat said:
Paul says “on the contrary” indicating that he had something new to impart to these three. Then he says, “When they saw…” Indicating that they now understood what he was imparting to them. Peter makes this clear in 2 Peter 3:14,15 where he says, “There are things in Paul’s epistles that are hard to understand.” [paraphrase]. Question: When the 12 were sent out to preach the gospel in Luke 9:6, what was the content of that gospel?
Click to expand...
Secondly, again, in the above paragraph you’re going beyond what is written. “On the contrary” simply means, “decidedly not so,” it does not mean, “but rather the opposite.” If I say, “They did not kill me; on the contrary I am still very much alive,” by your interpretation, you would have to assume that I instead killed “them,” whomever they are. But, again, that cannot be found in the text. Based on what was said, we can only infer that, obviously, they did not kill me. Likewise with Galatians 2:6ff. Paul says that Sts. Peter, James, and John “added nothing to him,” but “on the contrary” recognized that he had been commissioned to take the Gospel to the Gentiles while they had been commissioned to take the Gospel to the Jews. In the verse, it only mentions one Gospel. In fact, if you back just a little bit, you’re recall that St. Paul makes a rather big to-do about the fact that there is only one Gospel, saying that if anyone says otherwise, they are to be accursed. Yet, you speak as though there are half a dozen different Gospels. St. Paul himself affirms that there is no such thing as “another gospel”. (Cf. Gal 1:6-9) For any gospel to be the One True Gospel, it must be the exact same Gospel as taught by St. Paul and the other Apostles since the very beginning. Yet, the very first record of anyone teaching anything like what you’ve been describing with your various dispensations, separate and distinct from one another, is in the 1820s! Jesus did not walk the Earth in the 1820s. The Apostles did not receive the commission from Christ to preach to His Gospel to the ends of the Earth in the 1820s, Cat. Those two things happened in the nothing-30s, almost 18 whole centuries before Scofield and John Nelson Darby were even born. Yet they are the very first people to interpret the Bible the way you seem to be doing.

And, as I said previously, your assertion completely ignores the entire story of Acts 10. If it was St. Paul, and not God Himself, who revealed to St. Peter that the Gospel was meant for the Gentiles too, then either you must completely deny the entire tenth chapter of Acts, which clearly shows that God speaks to St. Peter three times in a vision and then demonstrates His will to St. Peter by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius’ entire household in St. Peter’s presence (not St. Paul’s), or you must tell me that St. Paul is the one who gave St. Peter that vision and St. Paul was the one who gave them the Holy Spirit. So which is it? Are you denying that Acts 10 is the inspired Word of God? Or are you claiming that St. Paul is not a human being but is actually God the Holy Spirit? Those are the only two options that would make your assertion about Galatians 2 logically consistent with the tenth chapter of Acts.
 
Sorry, I can’t agree with your interpretation. Seems to me that you Judaize the Body of Christ. Speaking of gospels: In Luke 9:6 the 12 go “everywhere preaching the gospel.” What is the content of that gospel? Did it include the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?
 
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary [A-J]
contrary
CONTRARY, a. L., against.
  1. Opposite; adverse; moving against or in an opposite direction; as contrary winds.
  2. Opposite; contradictory; not merely different, but inconsistent or repugnant.
The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary, the one to the other. Galatians 5.

This adjective, in many phrases, is to be treated grammatically as an adverb, or as an adjective referring to a sentence or affirmation; as, this happened contrary to my expectations. The word here really belongs to the affirmation or fact declared, this happened; for contrary does not, like an adverb, express the manner of happening, but that the fact itself was contrary to my expectation. According, agreeable, pursuant, antecedent, prior, anterior, &c., are often used in the like manner.

CONTRARY, n.
  1. A thing that is contrary or of opposite qualities.
No contraries hold more antipathy, than I and such a knave.
  1. A proposition contrary to another, or a fact contrary to what is alledged; as, this is stated to be a fact, but I will endeavor to show the contrary.
On the contrary, in opposition; on the other side.

To the contrary, to an opposite purpose, or fact.

They did it, not for want of instruction to the contrary.

He said it was just, but I told him to the contrary.

CONTRARY, v.t. To contradict or oppose.

Did Peter record in 2 Peter 3:15,16 That there were things in Paul’s epistles that “are hard to understand?” Hmmm, wonder why he said that?
 
#1 Everytime the word “priest” is mentioned in the N.T. it is the same Greek word. Paul never uses the term from Romans to Philemon. You saw from my previous treads how the terms “priest” and “presbyterus” are used. I showed you every place these words were found in the N.T. I believe that you start from a shaky foundation in refusing to recognize that our Lord’s earthly ministry was to Israel. He sent the 12 to Israel and told them not to go to the Gentiles. By placing the Body of Christ in these epistles you are forced into a “spiritualization” of Scripture that is strictly un-Biblical! Different gospels? The Bible recognizes that the “gospel of the kingdom” was for Israel while the “gospel of the grace of God” is for the Body of Christ. When the 12 were sent to preach the “gospel of the kingdom” they were not proclaiming the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. They, at that time, did not know nor understand His death, burial and resurrection [Luke 18:31-34; John 20:9]. Paul’s gospel included the death, burial and resurrection [1 Cor. 15:1-4]. In Gal. 1 Paul is warning about perverting the gospel of the grace of God, which the Judaizers were doing. Paul speaks of “my gospel” 3 times [Romans 16:25; Rom. 2:16 and 2 Tim. 2:8]. No other writer does this.
 
Tib: You said, in an earlier thread, that Mt. 19:28 is describing the magesterium.
Mt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Are you teaching “replacement theology?” How many members of the magesterium? Do the know which tribe each member belongs? When our Lord sent the 12 out to preach the gospel, what gospel were they preaching? How are the 12 tribes set out in the church? Which tribe do you belong?
Grace and Peace,
QC
 
No, Cat, I’m not teaching “replacement theology” nor any other rediculous tangential or speculative theology. The only theology I ascribe to is Catholic theology, which can and does trace its roots directly to Jesus through the Apostles in an unbroken line of succession. If you want to know what I believe in full, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you want to know how we trace every single doctrine back to the Apostles, read Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Development of Doctrine. If you want to see the same Catholic Church 1900 years ago teaching the same doctrines that it teaches today, read the Early Church Fathers.

As I said yesterday (and as Paul said almost 2000 years ago), there is only one Gospel. If what you believe cannot be traced back through history directly to the teaching of the Apostles and everyone they passed their teaching on to (cf. II Tim 2:2), then your interpretation of multiple, splintered gospels is not of God. It’s that simple. Can you show me anyone who believed what you believe prior to A.D. 1800 and after A.D. 100? If not, you need to re-evaluate your belief system and re-assess the trustworthiness of those who taught it to you. Because, as Paul himself put it,
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel—not that there is another gospel!, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. **But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. **As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:6-9).
Did you personally hear St. Paul or any of the other Apostles preach to you? No. Of course not. Did St. Paul or any of the other Apostles lay hands on you and entrust you with the duty of protecting and handing on the teaching of Christ to successive generations? No. Of course not. But we know who did hear them and who were ordained by them, and those men have not passed on anything like what you have expressed here.

I have never refused to acknowledge that Jesus came first to the Jews. That, too, has always been accepted fact in Catholic theology. If it were not accepted by the Catholic Church, it would not be recorded in the Gospels because we wrote them. I simply refuse to accept your fallible interpretation of it, which creates an exagerated and (if I must say so) hyper-spiritualized meaning of that historical/theological fact.

I have not answered most of your questions because they are irrelevant. The Gospel as preached by Christ before His Passion is no different than the Gospel He taugh them after it, nor is it different than that which they taught their successors after Pentecost. The temporal understanding or lack thereof of the disciples does not change the essence of the Truth of God. There is only one Gospel just as there is only One God (cf. Gal 1:6-9; Eph 4:4-6). Therefore, the True interpretation of Scripture must be consistent with everything in every book of the Bible, or else it is in error. That’s the simple fact of the matter. Clearly, you and I have different concepts of the same words, such as “spiritualizing” and “dispensation.” Nevertheless, the plain truth is that your multiple Gospel theory, even on the simple point of who revealed to whom that it was time to share the Gospel with the Gentiles and when they did so, quite clearly contracts what is flatly stated as fact by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts, yet you refuse to address this massive contradiction! And again, Paul repeatedly says that there is only one Gospel, yet you claim there is a “gospel of the kingdom” and an entirely different “gospel of the grace of God.” Has it truly never occurred to you that these are simply different names for the same Gospel, just as King of Kings, Prince of Peace, and Immanuel are all just different names for the same Person, meant to highlight different aspects which all indivisibly make up the same Truth and the same Being?

You’ve said before that “no one is infallible,” yet you refuse to even consider that you therefore likely believe in at least some error, which is the logical result of accepting that you are not infallible. You continually claim by your words the right of infallibly telling me that my interpretation is “unbiblical,” yet, according to the belief that no one anywhere is infallible, my interpretation must be equally as valid as yours. Furthermore, if you are not infallible, then you must admit that at least some part of your belief-system is incorrect. However, St. Paul himself commands St. Timothy to “charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (I Tim. 1:3). None! Not one doctrine different than the Truth entrusted to Timothy by Paul! Cat, anything that is incorrect is contrary to the God Who is Truth Itself. Yet, I once again remind you, you cannot trace any of the doctrines you’ve been espousing here back through history to Paul, or Timothy, or any other Apostle! Talk about unbiblical…
 
Yes, you are teaching replacement theology. You are replacing Israel with the Body of Christ. The Bible keeps them separate. Note:
  1. The Apostle Paul and the apostle Peter each preached the gospel, the good news. But upon close examination of just what they were saying, it is apparent that their messages were different from one another. Yet they did not contradict one another, because they spoke their respective gospels to two separate audiences.
  2. Our gospel [in this dispensation of the grace of God] is that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, gave His life as the perfect sacrifice to pay the full penalty for our sins, was crucified, was buried, and rose from the dead the third day [1 Corinthians 15:1-4]. This is what the Apostle Paul preached. This is the only gospel that we are to proclaim today. However, there have been other valid gospels in the past [Matthew 9:35; 10:5-7] and there will others in the future [Matthew 24:14 and Revelation 14:6, 7] after the rapture of the church.
  3. Even though they had been plainly told by the Lord Jesus Christ beforehand, the twelve apostles did not know that the Lord Jesus Christ was going to die or rise from the dead [Matthew 16:21,22; Luke 18:31-34; and John 20:9]. It was hidden from them. We know that the twelve preached a “gospel” during our Lord’s earthly ministry, but it was not Paul’s gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
  4. Before our Lord Jesus Christ revealed it to Paul, the other apostles did not know that the Lord Jesus Christ’s crucifixion was the sacrifice for our sins. In the book of Acts, Peter never mentions sacrifice, or propitiation, or the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. He never associates Christ’s death with the remission of sins. Our gospel by which we are saved was a mystery revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ to Paul. Satan didn’t even know about it [1 Corinthians 2:7, 8].
  5. Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles [Acts 9:15; Romans 11:13]. The Lord Jesus Christ and the twelve [with just a few exceptions] preached only to the people of Israel [Matthew 10:5-6; 15:24; John 12:20-24; Acts 2:5, 2:36, 3:12, and 11:19].
  6. After the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, Peter preached that the people of Israel should believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was who He said He was [Israel’s Messiah]. They should repent [change their mind about Him], and be baptized with water [Acts 2:38]. If they did all this, then the Lord Jesus Christ would return and bring in the kingdom just as the Old Testament prophets had foretold [Acts 3:19-21].
  7. The twelve apostles were under the Law of Moses and continued to zealously follow the law [Acts 21:17-20]. But Paul taught the Gentiles “….ye are not under the law, but under grace” [Romans 6:14].
  8. From Abraham, through the Old Testament, during our Lord’s earthly ministry, and the early chapters of Acts, God dealt with the nation of Israel. Israel alone is the focus of the early chapters of the book of Acts. The ministry to the Gentiles did not even begin until more than 12 years after the Lord’s earthly ministry, well after the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. [Acts 2:5, 22, 36; 3:12; 4:10; 5:30, 31].
 
John the Baptist [Matthew 3:2]; Our Lord Jesus Christ [Matthew 4:23; 9:35] and the twelve apostles [Matthew 10:7] all preached the gospel of the kingdom. You will note that this gospel was preached to Israel only [Matthew 15:24; 10:6]. What was the content of this gospel of the kingdom?
• It announced the “kingdom at hand” [Matthew 10:7]
• It included miracles, wonders and signs for the “sign people,” Israel [1 Cor. 1:22]
• It required the “baptism of repentance” for [eis] the remission of sins [Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38]
• This gospel presents our Lord Jesus Christ as the King of Israel [Matthew 2:2; 27:11]
• This gospel of the kingdom DID NOT INCLUDE the good news of the cross as later revealed to Paul [Luke 18:31-34; John 20:9]
The O.T. speaks of a coming kingdom, to be set up on earth, with the Lord Jesus Christ sitting on David’s throne in Jerusalem ruling over Israel and the nations. Please note:
• Spoken of since the world began [Luke 1:68-70; Acts 3:21-24]
• Will be on the earth [Genesis 13:14-17; Isaiah 11:9; Jeremiah 23:5; Psalm 37:9-11; Mt 5:5]
• The Lord Jesus Christ will rule as King of Israel and the entire world, Isaiah 9:6-7; John 1:49]
• Israel is God’s chosen nation and will be given supremacy over the nations, Deut. 7:6; 28:13]
• Redeemed Israel to rule and reign with the Lord Jesus Christ on the earth, Isaiah 62:1-4; Ezek. 37:21-28; Revelation 5:10]
• Gentiles to be blessed through Israel’s rise to kingdom glory, Isaiah 61:6-9; Zech. 8:13-23]
• The central gospel is the gospel of the kingdom [Matthew 4:17,23; 9:35; 24:24:14]
• The chief apostle is Peter, Matthew 16:18,19; Acts 1:15, 2:14]
• The number 12 is associated with Israel, Matthew 19:28; Revelation 7:4-8]
• Physical and Spiritual circumcision, [Genesis 17:9-14; Deut. 30:6; Luke 2:21]
• Atonement yet future - Matthew 25:31-34; Acts 3:19-21; Romans 11:25-27
• The God of heaven will set up the kingdom on earth with the Lord Jesus Christ having preeminence, [Deut. 11:21; Daniel 2:44; Matthew 25:34]
Titles of the Lord Jesus Christ in association with this kingdom on earth -
• King of the Jews [Mt 2:2] - 17 times in the gospels
• Jesus of Nazareth [Acts 2:22] - 17 times in the gospels and Acts
• Son of man [Matthew 8:20] - 85 times in the N.T.
None of these titles of our Lord are found in Paul’s epistles. They identify the Lord Jesus Christ with Israel and the earth.
 
QuickCat said:
Yes, you are teaching replacement theology. You are replacing Israel with the Body of Christ. The Bible keeps them separate.
Click to expand...
Cat, if you want to disagree with me or the Catholic Church that I swear to, then disagree with us, not with what you decide we should be saying to make your case easier to defend. I have attempted to show you what I believe, and you have insisted on telling me, “No, you actually believe this.” I have attempted to ask you to reconcile the things you keep saying with blatant discrepancies your theories create between your beliefs and the Bible, but you just keep ignoring those contradictions. You do not understand what I believe because you do not understand the Bible’s authors, and you do not understand the Bible’s authors because, rather than listening to the Church that is still, to this day, taught by the very people they passed their teaching on to, you listen instead to people who made up a novel system of theology out of thin air and wishful thinking and then, afterward, fit it awkwardly and confusedly onto the Bible. You cannot read the Bible out of context - historical, theological, geographical, linguistic context - and expect to understand it better than those who’ve never let go of that context, those who were raised in that tradition and entrusted with the interpretation of it by God Himself.

Do you deny what I believe? No. Because you do not even understand it. Yet here you are on a site devoted to explaining it to you! How about before you declare to me that, “Yes, you are teaching replacement theology,” you take the time to go to the home page of Catholic.com and actually read what it is I believe, explained for you from thousands of different perspectives. I am a Catholic, Cat, not a “replacement Christian” or a “dispensational Christian” or a “Fundamentalist Christian” or a “Calvinist Christian” or a “Lutheran Christian” or any other kind of confused, splintered Christian trying to deny what he doesn’t understand. If you want to know the essentials of my Faith, read the Credo of the People of God by Pope Paul VI. Since your teachers ascribe to a tradition that cut itself off from True Christianity over 500 years ago, I’m sure you’ll find plenty in there that you’d like to deny, but I won’t defend a belief that I don’t espouse, and I do not believe in replacement theology. I believe that the Gentile believers were grafted onto the tree of the People of God; they did not replace that tree. The Body of Christ is Jewish** because Jesus is a Jew**; no substitution need ever be made.
 
As for your endless lists of proof-texts, I won’t address any of them until you address the one question I have repeatedly posed to you: how do you reconcile your fallible contention that St. Paul was the first to teach that the Gospel was to be given to the Gentiles with God’s infallible declaration that He personally revealed this to St. Peter first? Either you’re wrong or God is, which is it?
 
Simple, because that is what the Bible teaches. Eph. 3:1-9; Col 1:25,26; Romans 16:25; 1 Tim 1:16 Notice the “Me first!” And that Paul is our pattern. Further, he tells us to “Follow him as he follows Christ.” 1 Cor 4:16 and 11:1. I pray that this helps you. BTW, you will note, in Acts 10, that Peter went to Cornelius very reluctantly. and then, after being given the commission of Acts 1:8, he asked, “Why did you send for me?” He also indicated to Cornelius that it was “Unlawful” for him to associate with a Gentile. Notice also that Peter would not allow Cornelius to kneel before him. Cornelius was a proselyte at the gate, he is the picture of Gentiles coming into Israel’s earthly kingdom.
Grace and Peace,
QC
 
QuickCat said:
Simple, because that is what the Bible teaches. Eph. 3:1-9; Col 1:25,26; Romans 16:25; 1 Tim 1:16 Notice the “Me first!” And that Paul is our pattern. Further, he tells us to “Follow him as he follows Christ.” 1 Cor 4:16 and 11:1. I pray that this helps you. BTW, you will note, in Acts 10, that Peter went to Cornelius very reluctantly. and then, after being given the commission of Acts 1:8, he asked, “Why did you send for me?” He also indicated to Cornelius that it was “Unlawful” for him to associate with a Gentile. Notice also that Peter would not allow Cornelius to kneel before him. Cornelius was a proselyte at the gate, he is the picture of Gentiles coming into Israel’s earthly kingdom.
Grace and Peace,
QC
Click to expand...
What version of the Bible are you reading? There’s no “Me first!” anywhere in any of those verses.

Also, what does it matter if Peter was reluctant? God showed him the vision and ordered him to go with Cornelius’ men, and he went. If he were completely rejecting the revelation given to him by God, he never would’ve set foot in the Gentile’s house! And, of course Peter tells Cornelius that it is “unlawful” for him to enter Cornelius’ house. Do you know nothing of Judaism? When Peter set foot in Cornelius’ house he became ritually unclean according to the Law of Moses, but St. Peter obeyed the vision of the Holy Spirit that told him, “What God has cleansed, you must not call unclean” (Acts 10:15) and also the voice of the Holy Spirit that told him, “Rise and go down, and accompany them without hesitation; for I have sent them” (10:20). The very act of entering Cornelius’ house was a confirmation that St. Peter had received and accepted the Word of God that the Gentiles were to be welcomed into the same Covenant as the Jews: the New Covenant in Christ’s Blood.

As for “and then, after being given the commission of Acts 1:8, he asked, ‘Why did you send for me?’” no one says anything like that either in Acts chapter 10 or anywhere near Acts 1:8, so I have no clue what in the world you’re trying to say here, either. And again, what does it matter that Peter wouldn’t let Cornelius bow to him??? Whatever you’re trying to say, you didn’t say it. This has absolutely no relevence to whether Paul and Peter taught the same Gospel or different ones. I could point out that Paul, likewise, refused to let people bow to himself and Barnabus for the exact same reason that Peter wouldn’t let Cornelius do here: because they’re not God and worship belongs to God alone (Acts 14:11-18).

You need to learn to write coherent lines of reasoning. As I’ve said before, a mere string of proof texts or “it says ‘bla’ here” statements does not constitute a cogent argument. What the words in the Bible are is not in dispute; their meaning is. But if you don’t convey what it is you believe the verses you point out have to do with one another, no one can understand the line of reasoning you are attempting to espouse.

As for my line of reasoning, I will show you how your statements contradict the Bible: You said in post #13, “[Paul] revealed to them the gospel of the UNcircumcision *.” Yet, the Bible shows that St. Peter, with absolutely no help from St. Paul, not only sees that God is opening the gates of salvation to the Gentiles also, but he declares it to everyone there!
“And Peter opened his mouth and said: 'Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. …
While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. **Then Peter declared, ‘Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’ And he commanded them to be baptized **in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days” (Acts 10:34-48).
You again claim that “Cornelius was a proselyte at the gate, he is the picture of Gentiles coming into Israel’s earthly kingdom,” yet I see absolutely nothing about the Gentiles being circumsized here, which is the only way anyone ever became an Israelite under the Old Covenant, nor is there a single word said about “Israel’s earthy kingdom.” Likewise, I see nothing about St. Paul revealing any of this to St. Peter. As I keep saying, the welcoming of the Gentiles into the New Covenant was revealed by God directly to St. Peter. This was nothing “new” or “novel” given to St. Paul alone.

You cannot flatly deny what is explicitly stated in the Bible while purporting that your reason for doing so is “because that is what the Bible teaches.” It’s just plain not what the Bible teaches, Cat, and none of your proof texts even begin to claim that it is. Your response is totally non-sepuitur. Either you agree with the plain Truth revealed here in Acts 10, or you disagree and claim instead that God is a liar. Which is it?

P.S. You believe that God promises that Jesus will rule a physical kingdom of Israel on the planet Earth, yes? Why then does Jesus Himself specifically say, “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world” (John 18:36)? Either you agree with the plain Truth in the Word of God, or you disagree and claim instead that God is a liar. Which is it?*
 
1Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
Strong’s Greek Dictionary
4413. πρωτος protos
Search for G4413 in KJVSL
πρωτος protos pro’-tos
contracted superlative of 4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance):—before, beginning, best, chief(-est), first (of all), former.

See Greek 4253
 
1Co 14:37 If any man1536 think himself1380 to be1511 a prophet,4396 or2228 spiritual,4152 let him acknowledge1921 that3754 the things that3739 I write1125 unto you5213 are1526 the commandments1785 of the3588 Lord.2962
2Pe 3:15 And2532 account2233 that the3588 longsuffering3115 of our2257 Lord2962 is salvation;4991 even as2532 our2257 beloved27 brother80 Paul3972 also2532 according2596 to the3588 wisdom4678 given1325 unto him846 hath written1125 unto you;5213
2Pe 3:16 As5613 also2532 in1722 all3956 his epistles,1992 speaking2980 in1722 them846 of4012 these things;5130 in1722 which3739 are2076 some things5100 hard to be understood,1425 which3739 they that are unlearned261 and2532 unstable793 wrest,4761 as5613 they do also2532 the3588 other3062 Scriptures,1124 unto4314 their848 own2398 destruction.684

Paul tells the Corinthians that the things that he writes are the “commandments of the Lord” [Jesus Christ]. And Peter, writing to Israel, indicates that in all of Paul’s epistles there are some things “hard to understand.”

Why would Peter say that Paul writes, in all his epistles, some things that are “hard to understand” if he and Paul preached the same gospel? Also, in verse 15, Peter indicates that Paul has written an epistle to the Hebrews.

Note the following verses: Paul writing Scripture “hard to understand.”

1Co 11:1 Be1096 ye followers3402 of me,3450 even as2531 I also2504 am of Christ.5547

1Co 4:16 Wherefore3767 I beseech3870 you,5209 be1096 ye followers3402 of me.3450

2Ti 2:7 Consider3539 what3739 I say;3004 and1063 the3588 Lord2962 give1325 thee4671 understanding4907 in1722 all things.3956
2Ti 2:8 Remember3421 that Jesus2424 Christ5547 of1537 the seed4690 of David1138 was raised1453 from1537 the dead3498 according2596 to my3450 gospel:2098

If Peter and Paul were preaching the same message [in the gospels and Acts], then Paul makes a strange statement in Galatians 2:7 –

Gal 2:7 But235 contrariwise,5121 when they saw1492 that3754 the3588 gospel2098 of the3588 uncircumcision203 was committed4100 unto me, as2531 the gospel of the3588 circumcision4061 was unto Peter;4074
Later, after Paul met with James, Peter and John, they began to understand that Paul’s message was different from theirs and they began to apprehend the good news of the cross that Paul preached.

Tib, I have cited so many Scriptures about our Lord Jesus Christ establishing His literal kingdom on this earth. You can deny it, but the angels told the 11 that the Lord would “return in like manner.” He will, in that day, stand on the Mt. of Olives [Zech 14:4]. Of course His kingdom is not of this world [origin], it is from heaven, but it will be on the earth. Rev. 20 describes the duration of this kingdom [on earth].
 
As for my line of reasoning, I will show you how your statements contradict the Bible: You said in post #13, “[Paul] revealed to them the gospel of the UNcircumcision *.” Yet, the Bible shows that St. Peter, with absolutely no help from St. Paul, not only sees that God is opening the gates of salvation to the Gentiles also, but he declares it to everyone there!"And Peter opened his mouth and said: 'Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. …
While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. *Then Peter declared, ‘Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’ And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days" (Acts 10:34-48).
Question: Do you think “gospel OF the uncircumcision” and “gospel of the circumcision” are the same thing? Cornelius was UNcircumcisioned - as such, he worshipped Israel’s God and gave alms to the Jews and thus WAS a proselyte at the gate. Look it up! He received the Holy Spirit before baptism, so he was saved and then was baptized. This is a change from Peter’s message in Acts 2:38. I am trruly sorry that you don’t read with understanding as far as the Word of God is concerned. BTW, you never did respond to what Peter writes in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Peter admits that there are things in Paul’s epistles that are “hard to understand.” Apparently, you have the same problem as Peter did. Be of good cheer, the Lord Jesus Christ is coming soon to catch all believers up and so “shall we ever be with the Lord.” Tib, I note that you are very careful to give people the “Saint” title, i.e., St. Peter, St. Paul, etc., but you address my LORD and SAVIOR by His name of shame and humiliation, “Jesus.” Please give Him His title, LORD. You will note that the jailer was told to believe on “the LORD Jesus Christ.”
Peace, Saint QC
 
QuickCat said:
Why would Peter say that Paul writes, in all his epistles, some things that are “hard to understand” if he and Paul preached the same gospel?
Click to expand...
Allow me to get right to the heart of the matter and answer this one question, which is the heart of your manifold issues: because Peter isn’t saying that he, Peter, has difficulty understanding them; he’s saying that you, Cat, will find them hard to understand! Have you ever considered reading the rest of that sentence? You know, reading the Bible in context? Or is that a foreign concept to you?

“But according to His promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by Him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen” (II Peter 3:13-18).

Note the “So also…” Meaning, “in the same manner” or “about the same things”… I believe your version says, “Likewise…” If St. Paul wrote of another, altogether different gospel than Peter, wouldn’t Peter be saying, “On the contrary,” or, “But of his gospel Paul speaks differently”??? But no, St. Peter says, “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you…”

And now, to the part that you “twist to [your] own destruction”. You claim that because St. Peter mentions “things in [Paul’s letters] hard to understand,” that he, St. Peter, whom Jesus placed as Rock upon which He would build His Church, fails to understand them? If that’s the case, then why does he say, “which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction,” as opposed to “which I struggle to comprehend,” or, “which were utterly foreign to me”? Why? Because, as St. Peter just said, St. Paul’s message is the same message that St. Peter and the other Apostles teach, preach, and write about!!! No. St. Peter is not confused, he’s warning you about your confusion! He doesn’t just say that Paul says things that are hard to understand, he tells you what people like John Nelson Darby and Cyrus Scofield will do with Paul’s writings as well as with “the other Scriptures”: they will "twist [them] to their own destruction! And why does he tell you this, Cat? So that "[y]ou therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, [might] beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability."

If you would read the Bible for what it is, a series of books, not written as a secret code-book of mismatched and conspiratorially-connected tidbits, but as a simple, straight-forward collection of love-letters from God to His Church, the Body of Christ, you would see that it is not a collection of prideful men from the “Brethren Movement” with “secret knowledge” never taught until eighteen hundred years after St. Paul and the other Apostles preached the Gospel who have the Truth. No, it is the people to whom the Apostles themselves entrusted that Truth. I know that you, yourself, did not abandon “the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42), you were merely raised apart from them in the confused aftermath of the Protestant Deformation, just as I was. But the Way is still open to you just as it was to me. You are welcomed to come back to the place where you will again find “your own stability,” just as St. Peter, in full communion with St. Paul, promises you. Seek the Truth with a humble heart, and you will find it in the Catholic Church. Trust not in human teachers with no authority from God, but trust rather in the teachers chosen and commissioned by God Himself in an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession. To them was entrusted the Deposit of the Faith, and from them it is given freely to all who seek it.
 
Hi Tib: Top of the afternoon to ya! I pray that you and family are well and happy in the LORD Jesus Christ, as I am. Suggestion [sincere]: Perhaps an in-depth study of the Pauline epistles would be of value. Please pay special attention to the "but now"s in his writings. Also notice that he speaks of “time past, time present [the 'but now’s] , and time future.” I think you will find this study both informative and challenging. Grace and Peace,
QC
 
QuickCat said:
Tib, I note that you are very careful to give people the “Saint” title, i.e., St. Peter, St. Paul, etc., but you address my LORD and SAVIOR by His name of shame and humiliation, “Jesus.” Please give Him His title, LORD. You will note that the jailer was told to believe on “the LORD Jesus Christ.”
Peace, Saint QC
Click to expand...
“His name of shame and humiliation”??? Have you no understanding of what “Jesus” means??? It is the Latin-ized version of our Lord’s Hebrew name, a name which, I would remind you, GOD Almighty commanded Sts. Mary and Joseph to give Him! That Hebrew name was Yeshua, which means “The LORD Saves!!!” How dare you claim that it is shameful and humiliating to speak of our Lord and Savior by the name which means what He did for us, “The LORD Saves!!!” That is not a disgrace but rather a proclamation of the saving power of Jesus Christ!!
 
Hi again Tib: Thanks for the advice. I know that it is sincere. I have a different understanding of 2 Peter 3:15,16 than you do. I understand that Peter is writing to Israel and telling these Jews, who had been under the Law, that Paul has written to THEM [book of Hebrews??? What else.] some things that are hard to understand. And, Gal. 2:7-9 is very clear that Paul had something new to impart to James, Peter and John. And they “saw” that the gospel OF the UNcircumcision was given to Paul as the gospel OF the circumcision was to James, Peter and John, et al, they then shook hands with Paul that they would go to the Jews while he went to the Gentiles. You will recall that our LORD Jesus Christ had said that Paul would come to revelations from Him [this, of course, over a period of time]. Paul was not just another apostle. He was the 13th! The number 12 relates to I-S-R-A-E-L. 12 tribes, 12 apostles, 12 thrones, etc. Ask yourself the question: If the 12 were to usher in the dispensation of the grace of God [Eph 3:2], why did our LORD raise up Paul? I am sorry, but from my study of the Word of God, Peter is not the rock on which our LORD Jesus Christ built the Body of Christ. Christ, Himself is the rock. 1 Cor. 10:4 among others.Our apostle Paul says that he is the “master builder,” the chief architect. Matthew 16:18,19,etc belong to the Jews. Our LORD Jesus Christ was ONLY sent to the Jews in His 1st advent. Israel has an earthly hope and calling while the Body of Christ has a heavenly hope and calling. Paul even writes that believers are blessed with all spiritual blessing in heavenly places, IN CHRIST. Did you kinow that Paul uses the phrase “in Christ” some 74 times in his epistles. It is not found in the gospels.
QC
 
QuickCat said:
Hi again Tib: Thanks for the advice. I know that it is sincere. I have a different understanding of 2 Peter 3:15,16 than you do.
Click to expand...
Yes, obviously, we have vastly different understandings, QC, but that’s the real issue here, isn’t it? It doesn’t matter how long we sit here saying, “but it says this here, which I take to mean bla bla bla,” to each other. We’re both reading the same Bible, looking at the same verses. We both believe the Bible to be inspired by God Himself. Yet, when I read it, I see everything in it pointing directly at the eternal Truth of the Catholic Faith (if I didn’t, I wouldn’t have converted), while you read it and see all these little strings tying it into neat little packages of unrelated theology called “dispensations” or something. The question is never going to be which one of us is best at piling up the proof-texts needed to convince the other. The question we each need to ask ourselves is the very question that Pilate asked Jesus: “What is Truth?” The answer is Yeshua. He is the Truth, the Fullness of Truth, and nothing but the Truth. No matter what you or I believe, nor how zealously we cling to that belief, He will never change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So, either we believe in Him - correctly, fully, and according to the terms He gives us - or we don’t. It’s that simple.

Now, I’m absolutely certain that you sincerely want to please God, that you want to believe in His Truth on His terms. So the next question you need to ask yourself is, “how can I know that I’m believing in His Truth on His terms?” You believe that the people who’ve taught you all the things you currently believe about the multiplicity of dispensations are undeniably fallible. They could be wrong. They could be very wrong. They could have it only 1% wrong, or they could have it 100% wrong. But even if they have it just 1% wrong, isn’t that too wrong?

Jesus promised that He would send His Spirit to guide us into “all Truth” (John 16:13), didn’t He? not “most Truth”? And He commanded that we “be perfect, therefore, as [our] Heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48), didn’t He? not “nearly perfect” as our Heavenly Father is “nearly perfect”? And St. Paul commanded St. Timothy to stop people from teching “any different doctrine” (I Tim. 1:3), didn’t he? not to merely stop them from teaching “excessively” different doctrine? So if Yeshua, the Savior who loves to save, and St. Paul, His trusted Apostle, don’t want even the tiniest bit of error to creep into what we, their followers, believe, then how can you be content to know that you have absolutely no certainty whether the things you’ve been taught are 1% Truth, or 100% Truth, or anywhere in between?

Those are the real questions, the “soup questions,” as they called them in the movie Finding Forrester. We could debate interpretation till we were blue in the face - perhaps we already have - and never convince one another. But it’s not about whether we convince one another or not; it’s about whether we believe in the Fullness of Truth, or in a bit of Truth tainted with some unknown amount of patchwork lies. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want even the slightest corner of my mind tained by anything propagated by the father of lies, do you? I want to be a follower of Jesus Christ alone…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top